alas, it will be QUITE interesting to watch how SCOTUS decides this.Because the logic of this decision is irrefutable, you are harming a MUCH larger number of citizens than you are preventing from committing fraud.

"But no matter how imprecise my estimate may be, it is absolutely clear that Act 23 will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes."

That's the judge saying your legislation sucks.

"The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

Ouch. That's like getting kicked in the 'nads.

"However, I also note that, given the evidence presented at trial showing that Blacks and Latinos are more likely than whites to lack an ID, it is difficult to see how an amendment to the photo ID requirement could remove its disproportionate racial impact and discriminatory result," he wrote.

No it won't. The SCOTUS will endorse Scotty's law, 5-4. Kennedy hasn't been a swing vote for years. He has presumably been watching the same Fox News shows that has turned your parents into fascists.

And don't give me any bull about how Roberts might be "reasonable". He only "sided" with Obama on Obamacare because he thought it would cost him re election. Upholding it as a tax was a troll decision, and nothing more.

Hollie Maea:namatad: it will be QUITE interesting to watch how SCOTUS decides

No it won't. The SCOTUS will endorse Scotty's law, 5-4. Kennedy hasn't been a swing vote for years. He has presumably been watching the same Fox News shows that has turned your parents into fascists.

And don't give me any bull about how Roberts might be "reasonable". He only "sided" with Obama on Obamacare because he thought it would cost him re election. Upholding it as a tax was a troll decision, and nothing more.

I've been thinking that about Kennedy for awhile now. He is still talked about as the swing vote, but he doesn't seem to ever swing anymore.

However, I disagree about Roberts. Seems to me he wants a legacy as much as anything else. Also seems to me that he wants the swing role Kennedy once had. A true swing justice wields a lot of power.

The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer. Or should the poor and minorities not be allowed to defend themselves? If you believe people should be required to provide ID to buy a firearm how do you justify your classism and racism?

Hollie Maea:namatad: it will be QUITE interesting to watch how SCOTUS decides

No it won't. The SCOTUS will endorse Scotty's law, 5-4. Kennedy hasn't been a swing vote for years. He has presumably been watching the same Fox News shows that has turned your parents into fascists.

And don't give me any bull about how Roberts might be "reasonable". He only "sided" with Obama on Obamacare because he thought it would cost him re election. Upholding it as a tax was a troll decision, and nothing more.

Hollie Maea:Oh, and Kennedy will write the majority opinion, explaining that you can count on people to not abuse the law, and besides, racism and discrimination have been dead for decades.

/Book it.

That or just overturn the ruling on the basis of the plaintiffs' lack of standing, since they had not yet been disenfranchised at the time they filed the lawsuit. Such a ruling would have the effects of not only reinstating Wisconsin's Voter ID law, but also guaranteeing that it stays in place for at least one major statewide election and preventing this lawsuit from being used as precedent in other lawsuits (including a lawsuit by the same plaintiffs)

/whether the USSC upholds or overturns the lower court's decision, it'll be a 5-4 ruling

I hate to you all this but I wouldnt be surprised if Gov Derpyhooves and his cronies in the state senate/assembly quick put something into place changing a word or two to fix this election in 2014 for ol Scooter. For sure in 2016 to make sure another Dem doesn't win the state again.

namatad:fusillade762: I'm sure SCOTUS will take care of that eventually.

alas, it will be QUITE interesting to watch how SCOTUS decides this.Because the logic of this decision is irrefutable, you are harming a MUCH larger number of citizens than you are preventing from committing fraud.

the net effect of the law is to clearly do harm, not prevent harm

well SCOTUS decided that racism was over so we didn't need affirmative action or those voting laws in the south to protect minorities.so if something doesn't exist we don't need laws protecting against it right?

Huh. I always thought Dems used the rationale of requiring car insurance was the reason why requiring health insurance was okay. Isn't it much more of a burden to require people to sign up for health insurance and pay premiums than it is to get a picture ID?

Flashlight:The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer. Or should the poor and minorities not be allowed to defend themselves? If you believe people should be required to provide ID to buy a firearm how do you justify your classism and racism?

I know you're a known trolling shiat, but since real life right wingers use this argument...

Guns: For obvious reasons, insane criminals aren't allowed to purchase weapons. ID is required to prevent them from killing people.

Voting: ID's are wanted by Republicans to keep people from voting for Demoncrats.

Now, one of these goals is a compelling public interest. And one is just unAmerican bullshiat that you should be ashamed of.

tbeatty:Huh. I always thought Dems used the rationale of requiring car insurance was the reason why requiring health insurance was okay. Isn't it much more of a burden to require people to sign up for health insurance and pay premiums than it is to get a picture ID?

You can sign up for health insurance over a telephone, and if you can't afford it, you either get medicare or the requirement is waived. That's not very burdensome.

Flashlight:The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer. Or should the poor and minorities not be allowed to defend themselves? If you believe people should be required to provide ID to buy a firearm how do you justify your classism and racism?

Goddamn but you gun nuts will just leap at the chance of grinding your pet axe at the slightest provocation regardless of whether it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

tbeatty:Huh. I always thought Dems used the rationale of requiring car insurance was the reason why requiring health insurance was okay. Isn't it much more of a burden to require people to sign up for health insurance and pay premiums than it is to get a picture ID?

I'm almost entirely sure that you can forgo purchasing health insurance and still vote.

Satanic_Hamster:Flashlight: The next thing to go down should be the requirement to show ID when buying a gun from a dealer. Or should the poor and minorities not be allowed to defend themselves? If you believe people should be required to provide ID to buy a firearm how do you justify your classism and racism?

I know you're a known trolling shiat, but since real life right wingers use this argument...

Guns: For obvious reasons, insane criminals aren't allowed to purchase weapons. ID is required to prevent them from killing people.

Voting: ID's are wanted by Republicans to keep people from voting for Demoncrats.

Now, one of these goals is a compelling public interest. And one is just unAmerican bullshiat that you should be ashamed of.

I actually am ashamed of voter ID laws. But unlike you I am consistent in my support of freedom. You just want get blacks to vote then send them back into the ghetto to be murdered whereas I believe that they should be able to defend themselves.

However, I disagree about Roberts. Seems to me he wants a legacy as much as anything else. Also seems to me that he wants the swing role Kennedy once had. A true swing justice wields a lot of power.

Not saying you are wrong, but what are some good examples of Roberts "legacy over ideology" votes?

Obamacare and Cal Prop 8 come to mind. He came down on the liberal side of each of those, but didn't have to really accept liberal arguments. In one, he settled on the tax idea, in the other, he broke a tie on a technicality. To me, both reek of him wanting to cast a surprising vote in a HUGE case, but not wanting the decision to hold much precedence beyond the unique cases before the court. Just my impression.